Actually I think my points remain. Would twitter want to use those
definitions that have been formed in the context of a (non live) archive?
Adam
On 16 April 2010 10:42, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
> +cc: Ed Summers
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Chris Sizemore
> <Chris.Sizemore@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> > the main problem is gonna be the cognitive dissonance over whether a
> tweet
> > is an information or non-information resource and how many URIs are
> needed
> > to fully rep a tweet...
> > so, who's gonna volunteer to publish the linked data version of Twitter
> > data, a la db/wiki[pedia] ...
>
> Based on
> http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2010/04/how-tweet-it-is-library-acquires-entire-twitter-archive/
> it looks like the Library of Congress might be taking on that job. And
> on the strength of the LCSH RDF work, it might even be feasible...
>
> Dan
>